OpenBSD PF 4Gbps Self-Hosting Benchmark: What to Measure Before You Commit
If you are considering a self-hosted stack, the wrong question is “can I run it?” The better question is “what stays maintainable after traffic, updates, and real work arrive?”
OpenBSD PF is a good fit when you want a compact firewall surface, clear policy, and a setup that stays understandable after the first deployment. The point of a benchmark is not to win a spec sheet race. It is to reduce surprises before you tie content, apps, and uptime to the stack.
What this benchmark should answer
- Can the firewall path handle the traffic shape you actually expect?
- How much headroom does the VPS need before the stack becomes fragile?
- Is the operational overhead lower than a managed or tunnel-based alternative?
- Can the setup become a repeatable content asset instead of a one-off note?
What to measure
Focus on the measurements that change decisions:
| Area | Measure | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Network path | Latency and jitter under load | Reveals if the stack is stable when traffic shifts |
| Throughput | Sustained transfer at target load | Shows whether the box can survive the real workload |
| Recovery | Time to restore after a change | Tells you how painful maintenance will be |
| Operational cost | Setup and support overhead | Determines whether self-hosting actually saves time |
| Content reuse | Can the benchmark become a guide or tool page? | Makes the work compound instead of disappearing |
PF versus managed hosting
PF is best when you want control and a small attack surface. Managed hosting is better when support, staging, backups, and recovery matter more than firewall policy.
Use PF when:
- you want policy clarity and predictable behavior
- you are comfortable managing the stack yourself
- you care about long-term simplicity more than vendor dashboards
Use managed hosting when:
- support response time matters more than control
- you need a safer path for non-technical operators
- you want the host to absorb operational complexity
PF versus cloud tunnel
A cloud tunnel can be fast to launch, but it adds dependency on the tunnel provider and often hides the network path you may want to reason about later.
PF is usually the stronger choice when:
- you want to own more of the network decision tree
- you expect the setup to evolve into a long-lived asset
- you care about turning infra choices into a content cluster
VPS selection checklist
Do not start with price. Start with headroom.
- CPU should leave room for bursty traffic, not just idle tests
- RAM should absorb the firewall, app, and logging overhead
- Network should be stable enough that benchmark results are repeatable
- Recovery should be simple enough to document for later reuse
- The provider should not force you into a brittle operating model
What to publish after the benchmark
The benchmark becomes useful when it feeds a cluster:
- A hub page that explains the decision framework.
- A comparison article that contrasts PF with managed hosting.
- A shortlist article that maps benchmark outcomes to actual providers.
That turns one technical experiment into a distribution asset.
Next step
If you want the benchmark-first path, start with the hub page and then compare hosts from there.
- OpenBSD PF 4Gbps Self-Hosting Benchmark hub
- Best Hosting Comparison
- Best Web Hosting for Small Business
